Existence of God - Irrelevant?

[Pista Gyerek]

The meme's-eye view of religion in Daniel Dennett's Breaking The Spell focuses on the development of attributes that have ensured religion's survival throughout human history. One of the design features most important in this regard is the belief in belief, the concept that religious belief is commendable and positive, whether or nor it's true.

Dennett obviously doesn't think God exists, but he argues that neither do many believers. Who can say whether people really believe nonsense like John 3:16? The only thing that's certain is that people believe in the sanctity of these ideas. This allows the meme-apparatus of religion to coerce people into professing ideas to keep them in social currency, as well as committing acts that demonstrate their dedication to the ideas. The ideas themselves are not the point.

So are we atheists missing the point by simply asserting that God doesn't exist? In the grand self-perpetuating scheme of religion, isn't that actually an incidental issue?

[r~]

"You atheists" are missing the point that "God" is the shorthand name given to the force behind existence.

Just because some "theists" have given God a bad name in the idolatry of their wild conjectures does not mean we do not exist.

The question is not whether God exists. The question is what is known and what is speculation and Belief.

Religion exists because Enquiring minds want to know!

I am
ItS
r~

P.S. I have been called much worse than atheist.

[bernee51]

"You atheists" are missing the point that "God" is the shorthand name given to the force behind existence.

Which assumes a force behind existence.

Just because some "theists" have given God a bad name in the idolatry of their wild conjectures does not mean we do not exist.

By we do you mean 'real theists' who believe in a 'real god' as opposed to the idolaters.

The question is not whether God exists. The question is what is known and what is speculation and Belief.

Can you enlighten us as to the 'what is known' and from whence comes this 'knowledge'?

Religion exists because Enquiring minds want to know!

Religion exists, for the majority, because 'enquiring minds' seek meaning and purpose in their existence in the face of the obvious slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

P.S. I have been called much worse than atheist.

You seem to see the term 'atheist' as a pejorative.

Why is that?

[Dionysus]

"You atheists" are missing the point that "God" is the shorthand name given to the force behind existence.

The "force behind existence" need not be a sentient mind. Here I shall use as an example Nietzsche's conception of zur Wille der Macht:

"If the motion of the world aimed at a final state, that state would have been reached. The sole fundamental fact, however, is that it does not aim at a final state; and every philosophy and scientific hypothesis (e.g. mechanistic theory) which necessitates such a final state is refuted by this fundamental fact.

I seek a conception of the world that takes this fact into account. Becoming must be explained without recourse to final intentions; becoming must appear justified at every moment (or incapable of being evaluated; which amounts to the same thing); the present must absolutely not be justified by reference to a future, nor the past by reference to the present. "Necessity" not in the shape of an overreaching, dominating total force, or that of a prime mover; even less as a necessary condition for something valuable. To this end it is necessary to deny a total consciousness of becoming, a "God," to avoid bringing all events under the aegis of a being who feels and knows but does not will: "God" is useless if he does not want anything, and moreover this means positing a total value of "becoming." Fortunately such a summarizing power is missing (- a suffering and all-seeing God, a "total sensorium" and "cosmic spirit", would be the greatest objection to being)."

And again:

"Is "will to power" a kind of "will" or identical with the concept "will"? Is it the same thing as desiring? Or commanding? Is it that "will" of which Schopenhauer said it was the "in-itself of things"?

My proposition is: that the will of psychology hitherto is an unjustified generalization, that this will does not exist at all, that instead of grasping the idea of the development of one definite will into many forms, one has eliminated the character of the will by subtracting from it its content, its "wither?" - this is in the highest degree the case with Schopenhauer: what he calls "will" is a mere empty word. It is even less a question of a "will to life"; for life is merely a special case of the will to power - it is quite arbitrary to assert that everything strives to enter into this form of the will to power."

Calling such a Will "God" would be meaningless: it is a will which is not sentient, which does not think, which is a pure Heraclitean logos, or force of change and becoming and passing away.

[r~]

"You atheists" are missing the point that "God" is the shorthand name given to the force behind existence.

Which assumes a force behind existence.

Just because some "theists" have given God a bad name in the idolatry of their wild conjectures does not mean we do not exist.

By we do you mean 'real theists' who believe in a 'real god' as opposed to the idolaters.

The question is not whether God exists. The question is what is known and what is speculation and Belief.

Can you enlighten us as to the 'what is known' and from whence comes this 'knowledge'?
You seem to see the term 'atheist' as a pejorative. Why is that?

It is generally recognized in physics that actions and reactions require forces. Our existence requires physics.

You may assume that when I use the term "we" I am including "all of us".

It is self-evident that we exist because of a force beyond our current understanding. What is known comes from observation and demonstration.

I was speaking of how some view atheists. Like some theists, there are some atheists that idolatrize their own definitions and Beliefs and self importance to the point of limiting the liberty of others. As a general rule, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the name of the bunch.

I am
ItS
r~

God speaks allegory, idolaters hear literal.

[Dionysus]

It is generally recognized in physics that actions and reactions require forces. Our existence requires physics....

It is self-evident that we exist because of a force beyond our current understanding. What is known comes from observation and demonstration.

Absolutely and unequivocally wrong. What you treat as a mysterious supernatural force is readily known to the natural sciences: we call it gravity, or the strong and weak nuclear forces, and so forth. If you seriously intend to descend into a pantheistic discussion of 'force', at least make it comprehensible, i.e. a Schopenhauerian or Nietzschean Will which does not require sentience on the part of this force and acts entirely within the realm of the natural (for there is nothing supernatural).

[r~]

"You atheists" are missing the point that "God" is the shorthand name given to the force behind existence.

The "force behind existence" need not be a sentient mind. Calling such a Will "God" would be meaningless

I did not call the Will "God", I call the Force "God".

ItS
Peace
r~

[Dionysus]

"You atheists" are missing the point that "God" is the shorthand name given to the force behind existence.

The "force behind existence" need not be a sentient mind. Calling such a Will "God" would be meaningless

I did not call the Will "God", I call the Force "God"

The existence of one renders the other superfluous. And since the Wille hypothesis is reconcilable with empirically-gleaned knowledge of existence, whereas a sentient Being is not, it only stands to reason that the former is accurate and the latter is not.

[r~]

It is generally recognized in physics that actions and reactions require forces. Our existence requires physics.... It is self-evident that we exist because of a force beyond our current understanding. What is known comes from observation and demonstration.

Absolutely and unequivocally wrong. What you treat as a mysterious supernatural force is readily known to the natural sciences: we call it gravity, or the strong and weak nuclear forces, and so forth.

Again you put words in my mouth. Please. Take a deep breath, relax and read exactly what I have said from the beginning; what I say from now on. Do not assume what I do not say.

I did not say supernatural – "current understanding" is the giveaway.

It is generally recognized in physics that actions and reactions require forces. Our existence requires physics.... It is self-evident that we exist because of a force beyond our current understanding. What is known comes from observation and demonstration.

What I said is absolutely and unequivocally right.

If not, show me how readily you can explain the unifying force that is gravity and strong and weak and electromagnetic force all in one. Explain the force that created the Big Bang.

Current observations lead us to the theory that there is a unifying force that brought about the Big Bang and that even now controls the universe. Current knowledge and understanding trumps whatever you thought I was saying.

ItS
Peace
r~

[Dionysus]

What I said is absolutely and unequivocally right.

Except it isn't.

If not, show me how readily you can explain the unifying force that is gravity and strong and weak and electromagnetic force all in one. Explain the force that created the Big Bang.

Current observations lead us to the theory that there is a unifying force that brought about the Big Bang and that even now controls the universe. Current knowledge and understanding trumps whatever you thought I was saying.

Except you're absolutely wrong, and are just brazenly borrowing generic "sciency" buzzwords, like all creationists, to lend an 'impressive' element to your dogmatic chicanery.

There is no unifying force. No such force has ever been postulated by any physicist.

The present understand of physicists and astronomers is that all interactions between matter are mediated by only four forces - and in fact two of these forces (electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force) have already been "unified" into a more general force which describes both as different sides of the same coin. Hopes for a quick unification of a third, strong nuclear force with these two - a "Grand Unified Theory" were dashed in the early 1980's when the IMB experiment and Kamiokande failed to find the signal of proton decay predicted by the favored candidate for this theory failed to materialize. Super-Kamiokande continues to search for proton decay, the discovery of which could truly spark a revolution in physics. A somewhat different approach termed "Supersymmetry" is now the preferred point of departure among theorists. Discovery of the even one of the many new particles needed to make Supersymmetry a reality, either at Fermilab or the future LHC machine at CERN would shake the world of physics to its foundations. The fourth force, gravity remains resistant to theoretical unification with the other three, since the quantum effects which must play a role in any such theory are far beyond the reach of contemporary experiments. Gravity, inextricably bound up with the question of mass, is ironically one of the main reasons for excitement over the announcement of discovery of neutrino mass.

- MacPherson, Physics, pp. 182

There is no underlying force, merely an interrelation between forces, one to the other. This fundamentally refutes your theistic, monist position.